1. FINNA and Open Source Software
Aki Lassila
Head of Development
National Library of Finland / Library Network Services

2. Software Architecture of Finna
Finna is based on several software modules that are integrated together; therefore new modules can be added to the system if necessary
Finna consists of two main parts:
End users’ national interface or portal
Archives’, libraries’, and museums’ administrator tools
Main modules of the Finna system are:
End users’ interface based on VuFind (GPL v2)
Administrator panel for organisations, customisation and statistics (BSD)
Search engine Solr (Apache)
Metadata harvesting and processing module RecordManager (We can choose)
Finnish linguistics module Voikko (GPL v2)
External index and external APIs

3. VuFind’s role as
the user interface
is central.
Admin panel handles statistics and upkeep.
More functionality and modules can be added in the future.
Finna’s demo:

4. The Open Source Definition (Bruce Perens 1997, www.opensource.org/osd.html)
Open source does not just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of an open-source program must comply with the following criteria:
Free Redistribution
Source Code
Derived Works
Integrity of the Author's Source Code
No Discrimination against Persons or Groups
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour
Distribution of License
License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
License Must Be Technology-Neutral
Example licenses:
The GNU GPL, BSD, Apache License, MPL, Open Software License, Nokia Open Source License, IBM Public License, W3C License etc...

5. Comparison of OSS Licences (http://opensource.sys-con.com/node/318776)

6. Comparison of OSS Licences

7. The Drivers of Open Source Software (World Information Technology and Services Alliance, WITSA)
The advent of the Internet:
One driver of open source development is the availability of the modern Internet to serve as a mechanism for the growth in open source development communities that are necessary for successful development and continued improvements in the programs.
Software license cost:
There is a perception that open source software products cost less than products developed by companies following a closed source software development model. Both software development models are in flux today as each works to serve the needs of customers by focusing on different pricing models; licensing is only part of the total value equation.
Flexibility:
Supporters frequently argue that because the source code is viewable to all, the underlying technology can be used in many innovative ways, offering a flexible platform to meet present and future software needs.
Global innovation:
With many more developers able to view the source code, supporters argue that the pace of innovation is greater as the barriers to software modification are lower.
Security:
Source code transparency is argued to promote more secure software because a wider group of people may inspect the software for flaws.
Customer involvement:
Supporters suggest that open source development models may provide more opportunities for customer- driven innovation than the traditional proprietary approach.

8. Private vs. Collective Innovation Model (von Hippel and von Krogh 2003)
Private investment
Restrict access to source code
Protect Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) via intellectual property law mechanisms: patents, copyrights and trade secrets
Private good
Induce innovation by fostering IPRs: companies and individuals invest in creating innovations in return for future profits (private investment&returns)
Organization: cathedral
Innovators: SW manufacturers
Problems: market failure, social loss
Collective action
Free/open access to the source code
Free revealing of innovation: distribute knowledge
Public good: nonrivalry, nonexcludability
Prevent market failures: avoid social loss, benefit from spillover and network externalities effects
Organization: bazaar
Innovators: (sophisticated) users
Problems: freeriding, prisoner's dilemma

9. "Private-Collective" Innovation Model (von Hippel and von Krogh 2003)
Free revealing and distribution of innovations but still retain copyrights.
Free revealing of innovation does not represent loss, it can increase adoption and diffusion => benefits from spillover and network externalities effects.
Open source software is information (digital product) and as such has the same characteristics as an public good (nonrivalry, nonexcludability).
Prevents market failures: avoid social loss (why societies fund academic research?).
Users carry out the entire innovation process: from design to distribution to field support and product improvement.

10. "Private-Collective" Innovation Model (von Hippel and von Krogh 2003)
Incentives for companies to participate in OSS projects:
Profit from increased sales of complementary goods (e.g. IBM sells more HW that runs OSS)
Benefit from "goodwill" and increased user participation
Costs of participating in OSS projects are relatively low
Incentives for individuals to participate in OSS projects:
Expect benefits from the completed public good (that they could not produce alone by themselves)
Free riders benefit less than contributors who benefit from private returns
Benefit from enhanced reputations (signalling), learning by doing, expexted reciprocity, altruism, incentives to help to build a community, value the sense of ownership and control over their work
Costs for participating and distributing are low

11. Main Principles Steering the Development of Finna
Development is based on the requirements defined together with libraries, archives, and museums.
Organisations will become users of the software in phases.
Development occurs in development cycles.
The services are planned together with the customers.
The user interface software is based on VuFind and additional open source software modules.
National Library is responsible of the development of the software.

12. Customer Driven Development and Finna
Why open source software (OSS) and agile development method?
Value of software is in how it enhances (existing) activities or enables (more efficient) new ways of doing things.
Above mentioned issues rely on e.g. how easily or efficiently users can utilize the system/software in question.
Note that software’s functionality is not enough but usability, integratability (related to openness, APIs), and customization are also important.
Development progresses in development cycles and issues are priorised according to users’ needs.
NDL’s user interface Finna will need to continue to develop also in the future.
Agile development methods (Scrum in this case) and OSS based development fully support ongoing, customer driven service development work.

13. Thank you!
Aki Lassila